[Cesg-all] Results of CESG Polls closing 17 January 2023

Wed Jan 18 18:18:21 UTC 2023

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2022-12-001 Approval to release CCSDS 131.0-P-4.1, TM Synchronization and Channel Coding (Pink Sheets, Issue 4.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 27 December 2022 and ending 17 January 2023:

                 Abstain:  1 (14.29%) (Merri)
 Approve Unconditionally:  6 (85.71%) (Barkley, Duhaze, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)  
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

Total Respondents:  7

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     SIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2022-12-002 Approval to publish CCSDS 131.2-B-2, Flexible Advanced Coding and Modulation Scheme for High Rate Telemetry Applications (Blue Book, Issue 2)

Results of CESG poll beginning 27 December 2022 and ending 17 January 2023:

                 Abstain:  2 (28.57%) (Merri, Duhaze)
 Approve Unconditionally:  5 (71.43%) (Barkley, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)  
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve Unconditionally):  Comments only, not conditions.

1) The changes from CADU to SMTF likely has an impact on the CSS Area FRM.  

2) The changes in the managed parameters will likely need to be accomodated in FR parameters in the FRM. 

The CSS Area will check and update the FRM as needed.  In the future, changes to fundamental terms such as CADU, etc. being coordinated with the CSS Area will be much appreciated. 

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally):  Comment not a condition. It is understood that this document is not a direct software specification but it seems odd that Service Parameters are not more fully defined. For example, the ChannelAccess.indication Quality Indicator does not state a data type or potential values such as “good" or "bad".  These details seem to be left to the implementations reducing any potential software interoperability or portability

Total Respondents:  7

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     SIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2022-12-003 Approval to release CCSDS 350.8-P-2.1, Information Security Glossary of Terms (Pink Sheets, Issue 2.1) for CCSDS Agency review

Results of CESG poll beginning 27 December 2022 and ending 17 January 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  7 (100%) (Barkley, Merri, Duhaze, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Moury, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)  
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

Total Respondents:  7

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     SIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2022-12-004 Approval to publish CCSDS 500.2-G-3, Navigation Data Messages Overview (Green Book, Issue 3)

Results of CESG poll beginning 27 December 2022 and ending 17 January 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  5 (83.33%) (Merri, Duhaze, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  1 (16.67%) (Barkley)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Erik Barkley (Approve with Conditions):  With respect to the in-development NEM (Navigation Events Message), I suggest that the NAV WG take a look at CCSDS 902.2-B-1, Communications Planning Information Format (CPIF). Based on the brief description of the NEM, it seems likely that many of the items planned to be reported in the NEM are already addressed in the CPIF. Also, the CPIF addresses the use case of observing apertures on celestial bodies other than earth. I think it wise to check the planned NEM content and compare against the published CPIF to help ensure that CCSDS does not produce duplicative standards. 

     Peter Shames (Approve Unconditionally):  There are a number of things in this document that I think are awkward.  All of the defined terms include embedded notes that are several times the length of the fundamental def.  The figures are some weird mix un-aligned with any style I can identify, and what I think are data objects are rendered in at least 2 different forms.

     Jonathan Wilmot (Approve Unconditionally):  Minor comment in section 3.2.1.  The statement "The exchange of navigation data messages is most likely to take place after level-0 processing of spacecraft telemetry" seems out of context and level-0 is not defined. Recommend just removing the statement.

Total Respondents:  6

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     SIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2022-12-005 Approval to publish CCSDS 922.2-B-2, Cross Support Transfer Service—Tracking Data Service (Blue Book, Issue 2)

Results of CESG poll beginning 27 December 2022 and ending 17 January 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  6 (100%) (Barkley, Merri, Duhaze, Shames, Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  0 (0%)  
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

Total Respondents:  6

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     SIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved Unconditionally
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CESG E-Poll Identifier:  CESG-P-2023-01-001 Approval to publish CCSDS 883.0-B-2, Spacecraft Onboard Interface Services—High Data Rate Wireless Proximity Network Communications (Blue Book, Issue 2)

Results of CESG poll beginning 3 January 2023 and ending 17 January 2023:

                 Abstain:  0 (0%)  
 Approve Unconditionally:  2 (50%) (Aguilar Sanchez, Wilmot)
 Approve with Conditions:  2 (50%) (Merri, Shames)
 Disapprove with Comment:  0 (0%)  

CONDITIONS/COMMENTS:

     Mario Merri (Approve with Conditions):  Table 1-1: I recommend (not a condition) to split the table in two independent tables. As it is now, it may confuse the reader who, for instance, may wrongly (and illogically) associate “Short Range” with “Low Rate”.

     Peter Shames (Approve with Conditions):  This is a very complicated set of standards from 2 entirely different protocol families.  This is viable for use by CCSDS largely because these are "familiar", commercially supported, protocol suites with readily available, compliant, commercial implementations.

That said, it is not clear to me that the registries, as specified in Annex B, are sufficiently well specified as to allow their implementation and use.  This spec appears to assume that the 3GPP defined PLMN, USIM, ICCID, and other unique protocol identifiers will be assigned using 3GPP procedures and tools.  It then specifies, in Annex B, that new, weakly specified, registries will be setup in SANA, but there is nothing in the specs that state clearly how these SANA registries will be used nor how any 3GPP registries that might be supplied with any commercial tools that are adopted will be integrated.

My operating assumption is that at least some of the entities that are going to utilize these 3GPP and/or WiFi protocols will also need to utilize CCSDS proximity or long haul protocols and those entities therefore will be registered in the CCSDS SANA Spacecraft and SS&A registries.  Furthermore, some or all of the entities using these 3GPP and/or WiFi protocols may themselves need to be registered, by the owning agencies, in the SANA spacecraft, SCID, or SS&A registries. 

Right now how this might occur is left unspecified.

Conditions:

1) Clarify how/where the key PLMN, USIM, ICCID, and other unique protocol identifiers, and the owning agencies, are to be assigned and managed.

2) Define the relationships, if any, between these nominally 3GPP registries and the SANA registries.

3) Refine the SANA registries, if they are to be preserved, such that they can adequately support the intended 3GPP registry functions.

4) Describe how the SANA registires for PLMN, USIM, ICCID, and other unique protocol identifiers relate to the existing CCSDS Agency, Spacecraft, and SCID/frequency band registries.

     Ignacio Aguilar Sanchez (Approve Unconditionally):  Please note for information that the attached ESA RIDs pointing to minor things, have just been delivered past the Agency Review deadline. They are expected to be dispositioned asap.

Total Respondents:  4

No response was received from the following Area(s):

     CSS
     SIS

SECRETARIAT INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:  Approved with Conditions
PROPOSED SECRETARIAT ACTION:            Generate CMC poll after conditions have been addressed

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *